
THE CONTINENTAL EIGHTS AND KELATIONS OF OUR COUNTRY. 



SPEECH OF A¥IELIAM PL SEWARD. 



IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 26, 1853. 



Mr. President : 

On the 23d day of February, 1848, John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, 
who had completed a circle of public service fillino- fifty years, beginning with an 
inferior diplomatic function, passing through the Chief Magistracy, and closing 
with the trust of a Representative in Congress, departed from the earth, certainly 
respected by mankind, and, if all posthumous honors are not insincere and false, 
deplored by his countrymen. 

On a fair and cloudless day in the month of June, 18.50, when the loud and 
deep voice of wailing had just died away in the land, the Senator from Michigan, 
of New England born, and by New England reared, the leader of a great party, 
not only here, but in the whole country, rose in the Senate Chamber, and after 
complaining that a member of the family of that great Statesman of the East, 
instead of going backwards with a garment to cover his infirmities, had revealed 
them by publishing portions of his private diary, himself proceeded to read the 
obnoxious extracts. They showed the author's strong opinions, that by the Fed- 
eral compact the siaveholding class had obtained, and that they had exercised, a 
controlling i4pifluence in the Government of the country. 

Placing these extracts by the side of passages taken from the Farewell Address 
of Washington, the Senator from Michigan said, "He is unworthy the name of 
' an American vvho'does not feel at his heart's core the difference between the 

' lofty patriotism and noble sentiments of o??,e of these documents, and ; but 

' I will not say what the occasion would justify. I will only say, and that is 
' enough, the other, for it is another''' " It cannot, nor will it, nor should it, 
' escape the censure of an age like this." " Better that it had been entombed, 
' like the ancient Egyptian records, till its language was lost, than thus to have 
' been exposed to the light of day." 

The Senator then proceeded to set forth by contrast his own greater justice 
and generosity to the Southern States, and his own higher fidelity to the Union. 
This was in the Senate of the United States. And yet no one rose to vindicate 
the memory of John Quincy Adams, or to express an emotion even of surprise, 
or of regret, that it had been thought necessary thus to invade the sanctity of the 
honored grave where the illustrious statesman who had so recently passed the 
gates of death was sleeping. I was not of New England, by residence, education, 
or descent, and there were reasons enough, why I should then endure in silence 
a pain tliat I shared with so many of my countrymen. Bui I determined, 
that when the tempest of popular passion that was then raging in the country 
should have passed by, I would claim a hearing here — not to defend or vindicate 
the sentiments which the Senator from Michigan had thus severely censured, for 
Mr. Adams himself had referred them, together with all his actions and opinions 
concerning slavery — not to this tribunal, or even to the present time, but to that 
after age which gathers and records the impartial and ultimate judgment of man- 
kind — but to show how just and generous he had been in his public career towards 
all the members of this Confederacy, and how devoted to the Union of the States 
and to the aggrandizement of this Republic. I am thankful that the necessity for 
performing that duty has passed by, and that the Statesman of Quincy has, earlier 
Printed by Buoll & Blanchard, Washington, P. C. 



1^ " 



than I hoped, received liis vindication, and has received it, too, at the hands of 
him from whom it was justly due — tlie accuser himself. I regret only this — that 
the vindication was not as generously as it v. as elfeclually made, 

There are two propositions arising- out of our interests in and avoijiid the Gulf 
of Mexico, which are admitted I)y all our statesmen. One of them 's, that the 
safety of the Southern States requires a watchful jealousy of the presence ^)!' Euro- 
pean Powers in the Southern portiotis of the North American continent: :.iid the 
other is that the tendency of commercial and political events invites the United 
States to assume and exercise a paramount influence in the affairs of the n itinns 
situated in this hemisphere; that is, to beconi'^ and remain a great Western C-.«nti- 
nental Power, balancitig itself agai^ist the possible combinations of Europe. The 
advance of the country towards that position constitutes what, in the language of 
many, is called "Progress:" and the position itself is what, by the same class, is 
called " Manifest Destiny." It is held by all who approve that progress and expect 
that destiny, to be necessary to prevent the re-colonization of this continent by 
the European States, and to save the island of Cuba from passing out of the pos- 
session of decayed Spain, into that of any one of the more vigorous maritime 
Powers of the Old World. 

In December, 1823, James D-Ionroe, President of the United States, in his 
annual message to Congress, proclaimed the first of the.vc two policies substan- 
tially as follows: "The American continents, by the free and indepetidont con- 
dition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered 
as subjects for future colonization by any European Power; and while existing 
rii^hts should be respected, the safety and interest of the United Slates require 
them to announce that no future colony or dominion shall, with their consent, be 
planted or established in any part of the North American continent." This is 
what is called, here and elsewhere, the Monroe Doctrine, so far as it involves 
re-colonization. 

John Quincy Adams and John C.Calhoun were then membeis, chief members, 
of Monroe's Administration. John Quincy Adains afterwards acknowledged that 
he was the author of that doctrine or policy; and John C. Calhoun, on the 15th 
of May, 1848, in the Senate, testified on that point fully. A Senator had related 
an alleged conversation, in which Mr. Adams was represented as having said that 
tl'ree memorable ])ropositions contained in that message, of which what I have 
quoted was one, had originated with himself. Mr. Calhoun replied, that Mr. 
Adams, if he liad so stated, must have referred to only the one proposition con- 
cerning re-colonization, (the one now in question,) atid then added as follows : 
"As respects that, his (Mr. Adams's) memory does not diHer from mine. * * 
* * It originated entirely with Mr. Adams." — App. Cong. Globe, 1847-8, j??. 631. 

Thus much for the origifi of the Monroe Doctrine on re-colonization. Now, 
let us turn to the tiosition of John Quincy Adams, concerning national jealousy 
of the designs of European Powers upon the island of Cuba. The recent revela- 
tions of our diplomacy on that subject begin with the period wheii that statesman 
presided in the Department of State. On the 17th of December, 1822, Mr. Adams 
informed Mr. Forsyth, then American Minister in Spain, that "the island of Cuba 
ha.'l excited much attention, and had become of deep interest to the American 
Union;" and, referring to reported rival designs of France and Great Britain 
upon that island, instructed him to make known to Spain "the sentiments of 
the United States, wliicli were favorable to (he continuance of Cuba in its con- 
nection with Spain." On the 28th of April, 1823, Mr. Adams thus instructed Mr. 
Nelson, the successor of Mr. Forsyth : 

"The islands of Cuba and Porto Rico still remain, nominally, and so far really depend- 
ent upon Spain, tiiat she yet possesses the power of transferring her own dominion over 
them to others. These islands, from their local position, are natural appendages to the 
North American continent ; and one of them, Cuba, almost in sij^ht of our shores, from 
a multitude of considerations, has become an object of transcendent importance to the 
commercial and political interests of onr Union. Its commanding position, with reference 
to the Gulf of Mexico and the West India seas; ihe charadcr of 7(s population/ its situa- 
tion midway betv^een our Southern coast ai?d the island of St. Domingo; its safe and 



capacious havbov of the Havana, fronting a long line of our shores destitute of the same 
advantage ; the nature of its productions and of its wanLs. furnishing the supplies and 
need ng the returns of a commerce immensely profitable and mutuaiiy beneficial — give it 
an importanco in the sum ot" our national interests with which that of no other foreign 
territ'u-v can be compared, and little inferior to that v.-hich binds the d.iFerent members of 
this Uuion together. Such, indeed, are, between the interests of that island and of this 
country-, the goographica!, commercial, moral, and political relations, foi mod by nature, 
gathcrmg in the process of time, and even now verging to maturity, that, in looking 
forward to the probable course of events, for the short period of half a century, it is 
scarcely possible to resist the conviction that the annexation of Cuba to our Federal 
Republic will be indispensable to the continuance and integrity of the Union itself. It is 
obvious, however, that for this event we are not yet prepared. Numerous and formidable 
objections to the extension of our territorial dominions beyond sea, present themselves to 
the firsc contemplation of the subject; obstacles to the system of policy by which alone 
that result can be -compassed and maintained, are to be fovcsern and surmounted, both 
from at home and abniad ; but there arc laws of political as well as of physical gravita- 
tion ; and if an apple, severed by the tempest from its native tree, cannot choo.ic but fall to 
the ground. Cuba, forcibly disjoined frotn its own unnatural connection with Spain, and 
incapable of self-support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union which, 
by the same law of nature, cannot oast her off from its bosom. 

"It will bo among tha primary objects requiring your most earnest and unreniitfcing 
attent'on, to a=certain and report to us every movement of negotiation between Spain and 
Great Britain upon this subieet. **"*** So long as the constitutional Govern- 
ment may continue to be administered in the name of the King, your ofBcial intercourse 
will be with his minister.*, and to them you will repeat, what ilv'Ir. For-syth has been 
instructed to say, that the wishes of your Government are tiiat Cuba and Porco Rico may 
continue in connection with independent and constitutional Spain.''" / 

Thirty years afterwards, viz: on the 4th d.ay of January, 1853, the Senator from 
Michi^^an, [Mr. C.\ss,] without one word of acknowledgment of Mr. Adams's 
agency in instituting those measures of " progress " towards the " manifest des- 
tiTiy" of the country, submitted the resolutions which are under consideration, 
and which are in these words : 

^'■Risolvcd h^j th; S-^nale and Hoii^s of Representative,'^ of the United States oj America in 
Congress assemldcd, That the United States do hereby declare that ' the American conti- 
nent^, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, arc 
henceforth not to be considered as subjects ftr future colonization by any European Power ;' 
and while 'existing rights should be respected,' and will be by the United States, they owe 
it to their own ' jrafety and interests' to announce, as they now do, ' that no future Euro- 
pean colony or dominion shall, with their consent, be planted or established on any p?.tt of 
.the North "American continent;' and should the attempt be made, they thus deliberately 
declare that it will be viewed as an act originating in motives regardless of their -interests 
and their safety.' and which will leave them free to adopt such measures as an independ- 
ent nation mav instiy alopt in defence of its rights and its honor. 

••And I>e n farther resolved, That while the United States disclaim any designs upon the 
island of Cuba, inconsistent with the laws of nations and with their duties to Spain, they 
consider it due to the va-t importance of the sulject to make known, in this solemn man- 
ner, that they should view all efforts on the part of any other Power to procure possession, 
whether peaceably or forcibly, of that island, which, as a naval or military position, might, 
under circumstances easy to bo foreseen, become dangerous to their Southern coast, tothe 
Gulf of Mexico, and to "the mouth of the Mississippi, as unfriendly acts directed against 
them, to bo resisted by all the means in their power." 

In bringing lo^etiier these actions of John Qniiicy Adains in 1822, and of the 
Senator ftom^Michigan in 1853, and placing them in juxtaposition in the history 
of the Senate, I hav^e done all that the Senator from Michigan seems to have left 
undone, to vindicate the departed statesman from the censures heaped upon him 
by the living one in 1850. 

I proceed to consider the resolutions thus offered by the Senator from Michigan. 

The honorable Senator from New Hampshire offers an amendment, as a con- 
dition of his vote, in these words: 

'■•And be it further resolved. That while the United States in like manner disclaim any 
des'gns upon Canada, inconsistent with the laws of nations, and with their duties to Great 
Britain, they consider it due to the vast importance of the subject to make known, in this 
solemn manner, that they should view all efforts on the part of any other Power to procure 
possession, whether peaceably or forcibly, of that province, which, as a naval or military 



4 

position, must, under circumstances easy to be foreseen, become dangerous to their northern 
boundary and to the lakes, as unfriendly acts directed against them, to be resiated by all 
the means in their power.'' 

I will vote for that amendznent. It is not well expressed. But it implies the 
same policy in regard to Canada which the main resolutions assert concerning 
Cuba. The colonies, when they confederated in 1775, invited Canada to come 
in. Monttromerygave up his life in scaling the Heights of Abraham, in the same 
year, to bring her in. Scott, in 1814, poured out his blood at Chippewa to bring 
her in. If the proposition shall lail, I shall lament it as a repudiation by the Senate 
of a o-reater national interest than any other distinct one involved in this debate ; 
but I shall, nevertheless, vote for the resolutions of the Senator from Michigan. 
I shall do so, because — 

1st. The reverence I cherish for the memory of John Quincy Adams, the illus- 
trious author of the policy which they embody, inclines me to support them. 

2d. While I do not desire the immediate or early annexation of Cuba, nor see 
how I could vote for it at all until Slavery shall have ceased to counteract the work- 
ings of nature in that beautiful island, nor even then, unless it could come into the 
' Union without injustice to Spain, without aggressive war, and without producing 
internal dissensions among ourselves, I nevertheless yield up my full assent to the 
convictions expressed by John Quincy Adams, that this nation can never safely 
allow the island of Cuba to pass under the dominion of any Power that is already, 
or can become, a formidable rival or enemy ; and cannot safely consent to the 
restoration of colonial relations between any portions of this continent and the 
Monarchies of Europe. 

The re-establishment of such relations would of course reproduce in a greater 
or less degree the commercial and political embarrassments of our relations with 
other American communities, and even with European nations, from which we 
obtained relief only through the war of 1812, and the subsequent emancipation of 
the Spanish colonies on this continent, and their organization as free and inde- 
pendent Republics. Sir, I am willing, on the demand of th^enator from Michi- 
gan, or of any other leader, and without any demand from any leader, to declare 
myself opposed — radically opposed — opposed at all times, now, henceforth, and 
forever — opposed, at the risk of all hazards and consequences, to any design of 
any State or States on this continent, or anywhere else, which may, by possibility, 
result in re-producing those evils — the greatest which could befall this country, 
short of that greatest of all, to which they would open the way — the subversion of 
our own hard-won independence, and the returning dominion of some European 
Power over ourselves. I shall therefore vote for these resolutions, if it shall please 
the Senate to come to decisive action upon them, aiid I shall vote for re-affirming 
and maintaining the principles of John Quincy Adams, as defined in the Monroe 
Doctrine, and in his policy in regard to Cuba, at all times, and under all circum- 
stances whatsoever. 

But while thus expressing my devotion to those principles, I cannot too strongly 
express myself against the manner in which they have been brought in issue here 
on this occasion. The issue is made at a time, and under circumstances, which 
render it inevitable that we must fail, signally fail, in maintaining the great prin- 
ciples which it involves. ' 

The issue is raised at a wrong time. We are more than halfway through a ses- 
sion constitutionally limited to ninety days, and engaged with vast and various sub- 
jects which cannot be disposed of without long and most discursive debate. 

I think the issue is raised in a wrong way. Practically, and by custom, the 
President of the United States holds the initiative of measures affecting Foreign 
Relations. The President now in the palace will go out in thirty days, and his 
sanction, even if w.e had it, would therefore be of no value. But even that san • • 
tion, such as it would be, is withheld — and, I must confess, rightly withheld. Tlie 
people have elected a new President, who is just ready to enter the palace, and 
upon whom the responsibilities of the conduct of Foreign Relations, for four yervrs 
at least, must rest. Not only do we not know what his opinions on this qneM.ion 
are, but our action would anticipate the publication of those opinions, and en'.bar- 



rass — is it too strong an expression to say, factiously embarrass? — the incoming 
Administration. 

Moreover, we are not only required to advance in this matter without the light 
that Executive exposition might throw upon our path, but we are recpiired to pro- 
ceed without the aid or advice of tlie Committee to whom the care of Foreign 
Relations has been confided by the Senate, and, as there is reason to believe, in 
opposition to their deliberate judgment. 

Ao-ain, it results iVom the very nature of the case that a majority for the resolu- 
tions cannot be obtained, either in the Senate, or in Congress, or in the country. 

The principles involved in the resolutions have become a tradition among the 
American People, and on acknowledged occasions they would act upon them as 
traditions vigorously and with unanimity. On the other hand, the Americans are a 
practical people, engrossed with actual business affairs, and they will not act upon 
abstract principles, however approved, unless there ,be a necessity, or at least an 
occasion. So it has happened with the Monroe Doctrine on re-colonization, and 
with the national policy concerning Cuba. They are thirty years old: they are 
o-ener;tIlv accepted; and yet, not only have they never been aflirmed by Congress, 
but Conoress has refused to affirm them, solely for the reason that there was no 
pressing necessity, no particular occasion, for such an affirmation. Whenever a 
necessity or an occasion arises, it produces a popular sentiment or passion. The 
Northern States are content now ; they do not fear re-colonization, and do not 
want Cuba. The Southern States are content; they do not now desire political 
excitement, and they are not prepared for anything that may involve the nation in 
war. It is not to be denied, also, that the recent unwise and unnecessary expo- 
sition of our diplomatic correspondence throughout a period of thirty years, con- 
cernino- the island of Cuba, is regarded as having created embarrassments which 
only the lapse of some time can remove. 

The Senator from Michigan seems to be aware of these difficulties, and there- 
fore he labors to show that there is a necessity, or at least an occasion, for action. 
But he fails altogether in showing any new occasion — which, to tlse apprehension 
of the Senate and the country, is equivalent to failing to show any necessity or 
occasion. What are his facls? 1st. In regard to Great Britain and re-coloni- 
zation. The grasping spirit shown by Great Britain in the Maine Border question, 
and in the Oregon question. The Monroe Doctrine, as expounded by Monroe 
himself, declared that existing rights were to be respected — Great Britain asserted 
that her claims in those cases were existing rights. Those questions have been 
settled, rightly or wrongly, and have passed away. What more ? The British 
claim on the Mosquito coast? That, also, is settled by treaty. The organization 
of the Bay of Islands as a distinct colony ? That, too, falls within the subject mat- 
ter of a treaty. In each of these cases Great Britain has violated treaty stipula- 
tions, or she has not. If she has not, then there is no cause for any action — if she 
has, then the remedy is not an affirmance of the Monroe Doctrine, but direct 
Protest or War. 

I give Great Britain small credit for moderation. I think she has just as much 
as we have, and no more. We are of the same stock, and have the common pas- 
sion of a common race for dominion. But the country will be unable to discover 
that the recent events show any aggressions on her part, which constitute an occa- 
sion for an affirmance of the Monroe Doctrine by Congress. And now, secondly, as 
to Cuba. What has Great Britain done? Nothing but just what we have done. She 
has sent armed ships to prevent invaders from revolutionizing the island, and so 
severing it from its ancient connection with Spain. We have done the same. She 
has also proposed to enter into an agreement with us, that neitheir will acquire 
Cuba, or suffer others to acquire it. We have declined. The natural conclusion 
would be, that she was more forbearing than we. But the Senator avoids this by 
charging that the proposition was insincerely and hypocritically made on her part. 
British writers were before him in making that charge against us, founded on our 
voluntary revelations of our own diplomacy in regard to Cuba. I am too Ameri- 
can to confess their charge to be just, and not enough American to fling it back 
upon Great Britain for mere retaliation. 

What has France done by way of re-colonization } Nothing. A French adven- 



6 

turer. Count Boulbon, has attempted to revolutionize the Mexic:in State of Sonera, 
and fVded. There is not a word of evidence to connect the French Government 
or People with that movement. And for all that French newspapers here or in 
Paris may say, we know iiill well, that just as fast as the Mexican Stales shall bn 
severed i'rom the Mexican stock, by whomsoever it may be eifected, they will 
seek annexation, not to France or to any other European Power, but to the 
United States. Nor has France interposed, in regard to Cub-i, otherwise than 
as we have ourselves interposed, to keep it in the possession of Spain. 

So much for the acts of European Powers on the subjects of Colonization and 

Cuba. 

What remains of th:^ Senator's case seems scarcely to merit grave consideration. 
It consists, first, of ominous articles in newspapers. But even we, the most news- 
paper-loving nation in the world, make our designs and policy known, not through 
the newspapers, but by public acts and official agents; and France and Great Brit- 
ain do the same. The Press speaks on all occasions, but for itself always. No 
wise and calm statesman in either country feels himself compromised by what the 
Press may assume to speak for or against him, much less does either Government 
acknowledge any necessity for avowing or disavowing what the Press may allege. 
The language of the Press of any country, therefore, even if it were general, would 
not warrant national action by any oiher Government — much less would that lan- 
guage warrant such action when it was spoken by only one out of a thousand or 
live thousand journals. 

Secondly, the Senator from Michigan invokes our attention to what Lord 
George Bentinck has said in the B/ilish Parliament. Well, sir, that is important, 
what an En<j-lish Lord has said, and said in Parliament, too. That must be looked 
into. Well, what did Lord George Bentinck say ? Sir, he said very angry things — 
very furious things — indeed, very ferocious things. Prepare yourself to hear them, 
sir. Lord George Bentinck did say, in so many words, and in Parliament, too ! 
what I am going to repeat. His Lordship did say that 

" He quite agreed with Captain Pilkington." 

Ay, sir, his Lordshij) did say that "he quite agreed with Captain Pilkington!" 
Ominous words — fearlul conjunction; an English Lord and an English Captain! 
But this was not all, not by any means all that Lord George Bentinck said. He 
said, also, 

"They would never put down the slave trade, so long as it depended upon 
blockading 10,260 miles of coast, and he would do what Captain Pilkingion 
had recommended." And what do you think it was that Captain Pilkington had 
recommended? Be patient, I pray you, and hear Lord George Bentinck explain. 
What Captain Pilkington recommended was, "to strike n blow at the Head, and 
not the Hand. He would not send an army to destroy every individual hornet, 
but he would go to the hornet's nest at once." Yes, sir; and Lord George Ben- 
tinck not only echoed all these severe things which had been said by Captain 
Pilkington, as aforesaid, but he said also on his own account, "Let us take pos- 
session of Cuba, and settle the question altogether. Let us distrain upon it for 
the just debt due, and too long asked in vain, from the Spanish Government." 
As for the rest of the alarming sayings of his Lordship, 1 forbear from repeating 
them. Are they not written in the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, for the 
years 1847 and 1848. published by Blair & Rives, printers of the Debates of 
Congress, at page 607? 

And now, sir, it may assuage the passion and abate the fear that these threats 
of Lord George Bentinck to distrain upon a hornet's nest have excited, when I 
state, first, that they are old, and not new. They were uttered five years ago; 
namely, on the 3d of March, 1848. Secondly, that George Bentinck was a Lord 
only by courtesy, and not a real Lord. Thirdly, that Lord George Bentinck was 
in a very harmless minority in Parliament when lie uttered them, it being, indeed, 
unknown that he had any confederate in his wicked designs but Cnptain Pilking- 
ton. Fourthly, that this alleged speech was brought belore the Senate and the 
American people, in 1848, by a late member of this body, whose constitutional 
proclivity to wit and humor was so great as to justify the belief that the speecli, 



like llio Donaldson nnd Greer correspondence, was n hoax, (Mr. W.) Fifthly, 
tlint Lord George BeiiiiucU died some years ago, and Cnptaiii Pilkingtoii not 
linviiig been iseard of for a long liine, ihere is a strong presumption that the loss 
of his noble friend and chivalrous ally has thrown him into a decline. 

The tone of the speech of the Senator Irom Louisiana, (Mr. Soule,) was one of 
comnlaint against the Administration of our Government, and against France and 
Great Britain. The Administration w^s censured ibr austerity towards the associ- 
ates of Lopez, But either it could have protected or vindicated them consistently 
with law and treaties, or it could not. If it coidd, then the Senator's censures are 
too lenient ; if it could not, they are altogether unjust. Since the day wiien the 
gifted, ingenuous, and gentle Andre was executed on a gallows as a spy, by order 
of Washington, we have known the painful delicacy of executing general laws upon 
persons whose motives and bearing justly excited our respect and compassion. 
The Senator's sympathy in this case is right. It is only the perversion of it to 
awaken prejudice against the Administration that I condemn. France and 
Great Britain are said to have menaced us by saying in their correspondence, that 
a renewal of such an expedition as that of Lopez might endanger the peace 
of the nations. No such expedition can be undertalcen, of which it can be cer- 
tainly ailirmed that it will not in its consequences lead to .1 war. I thiid<, there- 
fore, that none but a jauildiced eye, such as does not belong to the President, or 
to the Secretary of State, could have discovered the insult thus complained of, 
and tliat iherefcre they may be excused ibr having received it in silence. 

The Senator shows us that six or seven years ago Spain herself meditated the 
establishment of a monarchy in New Grenada, and oidy 140 years ago, a prop- 
osition was made to the British Ministry to privately seize the Island of Cuba in a 
time of peace and friendship. These Ihcts would have been pertinent, perhaps, 
if the Senator had advised us to seize the Havana. But I understood him, on 
the contrary, to discountenance not only conquest, but even purchase, and to 
agree with those of us who propose to wait for the iruit to ripen, although he 
has been ai some pains to show us that it may rot in the ripening. Indeed, Mr. 
President, the Senator's argument seemed to me a meandering stream that visited 
ai]d touched all the banks of controversy, but glided gracefully away from them, 
and especially avoided plunging into the depths of any conclusion. 

Its tendency, I think, was to exasperate the American People against the 
Euro|)ean Powers, and to irritate them. I cannot sympathize with sucii a spirit. 
I would submit to no real wrong, and justify no oppression or tyranny comtnitted 
by them. But, on the other hand, I will seek no factitious cause of contro- 
versy. I want no war with them. We are sure to grow by peace. A war 
between the two continents would be a war involving not merely a trial which 
was the strongest, but the integrity of our Republic. Before such a war tshall 
come, I want to see Canada transferred from her false position in Europe, to her 
true position on this continent, Texas peopled like Massachusetts, the interior of 
the continent cultivated like Ohio, and Oregon and California not only covered 
like New York uith forts and arsenals and docks and navy yards, but grappled 
fast to New York and Wai^hington by an iron chain that shall stretch its links 
through the passes of the Sierra Nevada and the Rocky Mountains. 

The Senator tells us that the question of the acquisition of Cuba may be upon 
us to-morrow, and may not be upon us for twenty-five years. That is to say, it 
stands now, so far as we can see, where it has stood for twenty-five years past. 
But he advises us to be ready. That is just what I propose to do. And the 
way to keep ready is to keep cool. If we keep cool, we shall be none the less 
prepared, if the portentous question shall indeed come to-morrow; while, on the 
other hand, excessive heat prematurely generated will be sure to pass off" before 
the expiration of the longer period. 

Mr. President, let us survey our ground carefully and completely. Political 
action, like all other human action, is regulated by wshigher than the caprice 
or policy of Princes, Kings, and States. There is a tiine for colonization, and 
there is a lime for independence. The colonization of the American hemisphere 
by European Powers was the work of the 16th and 17th centuries; the breaking 



up of colonial dependence, and the rise of independent American States, is the 
work of the 18th and 19th centuries. It is a work that does not go on as broadly 
and as rapidly as we could wish, but it does not go backwards. It goes faster 
than was to have been expected under the circumstatices, for it began when the 
United States alone, of all the colonies, Spanish, French, and English, had 
attained adequate strength and sufficient preparation for successful self-govern- 
ment. European States cannot establish new colonies here, for the same reason 
that they cannot long retain their old ones. As for France, she surrendered 
all her continental American Empire to Great Britain in 17G3, except Louisiana 
and Cayenne. Napoleon syld Louisiana to us in 1803, because even he. could 
not keep it lor France. She keeps Cayenne only because it is not worth the cost 
of conquest. What does she want of more American colonies, to be severed from 
her as soon as matured ? 

Great Britain, too, lost in the American Revolution all her American posses- 
sions but a remnant. She keeps the remnant from pride, not interest, as Spain 
does Cuba. What does she want of more American colonics, to draw upon 
the home treasury for defence and support, and to become independent as soon 
as they shall become strong r Canada is only a nominal colony or dependency. 
Great Britain yet retains Canada, only by yielding to iier what she denied to us — 
fiscal independence. 

And now, what does France or Great Britain want of Cuba ? It is a slave 
colony. They have abolished slaveiy in all their possessions. Should either of 
them "obtain that island, the first act of Government there must be the abolition 
of slavery. The abolition of slavery, too, must be made with compensation, and 
the compensation must be drawn from the home treasury. Will either of them 
take Cuba at such a cost ? And what would Cuba, without slavery, be worth 
to either of those Powers? Let their experience in the West Indies answer. 
Cuba, without slavery, would be valueless to any European State. Cuba, with 
slavery, can belong to no European State but Sjiain. Cuba, without slavery, 
would be worthless to any Power but the United States, and John Quincy Adams 
was richt; Cuba, either with or without slavery, gravitates towards, and will 
ultimately fall into, the American Union. 

What, then! has France ceased to be ambitious, and has Great Britain adopted 
the policy that Augustus Caesar bequeathed to Rome, to forbear irom extending 
the bounds of Empire ? Not at all. France and England are unchanged. I do 
not know that as yet they have learned that their power cannot be renewed or 
restored in America. But I do know that they will find it out when they try to 
renew and restore it again ; and therefore all the alarms raised by the Senator from 
Michigan pass by me like the idle winds. The Monroe Doctrine was a right 
one — -the policy was a right one, not because it would require to be enforced 
by arms, but because it was well-timed. It was the result of a sagacious discovery 
of the tendency of the age. It will prevail if you affirm it. It will equally pre- 
vail if you neo"^lect to affirm it hereafter as you have refused to do heretofore. 
As a practical question, therefore, it has ceased to be. It is obsolete. You are 
already the i^reat Continental Power of America. But does that content you ? 
I trust it does not. You want the commerce of the world, which is ihe empire of 
the world. This is to be looked for, not on the American lakes, nor on the 
Atlantic coast, nor on the Caribbean sea, nor on the Mediterranean, nor on the 
Baltic, nor on the Atlantic ocean, but on the Pacific ocean, and its islands, and 
contments. Be not over-confident. Disregard not France, and England, and 
Russia. Watch them with jealousy, and baffle their designs against you. But look 
for those great rivals where they are to be found — on those continents and seas 
in the east where the prize which you are contending with them for is to be 
found. Open up a highway through your country from New York to San Fran- 
cisco. Put your domain under cultivation, and your ten thousand wheels of man- 
ufacture in motion. Multiply your ships, and send them forth to the east. 
The nation that draws most materials and provisions from the earth, and fabri- 
cates the most, and sells the most of productions an^ fabrics to foreign nations, 
must be, and will be, the great Power of the Earth. 



LIBRORY OF CONGRESS 

1 111 iiiii Hill Hill mil mil mil mil mil mil 1 nil nil 



011 932 943 7 



^:^:Sy 



